Hello Simon, Chris,
The implementation report for the Time Ontology seems to have been
updated beginning of August:
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/OWL_Time_Ontology_adoption
The usage table seems mostly good to me. The terms for which there is no
implementation evidence are the ones that had been identified as
"features at risk". Would you say that the implementation report is now
good enough? I note the report does not seem to make any difference
between consumers and producers. The Director will likely ask about
that, since he insisted on that distinction during the Candidate
Recommendation transition call.
What do you recommend for the terms with no implementation evidence? As
features at risk, they can be dropped from the spec without problem. Or
you may argue that there will prove useful in the long term and that
they should be preserved. What's your take on this?
We need to move forward and publish the specification as a Proposed
Recommendation as soon as possible, so that it may be published as a
final Recommendation by end of September. To request transition to
Proposed Recommendation, I need:
1. An updated spec if you propose to drop terms with no implementation
evidence
2. Some demonstration that all CR exit criteria have been met:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2017/CR-owl-time-20170606/#exit
3. A record of a group's resolution to request transition to Proposed
Recommendation. Could you issue a call for consensus with a one week
deadline once the spec has been updated?
I note that the SSN spec has a normative dependency on the Time Ontology
spec. This means that the Time Ontology spec currently blocks the SSN
spec. In other words, the SSN spec cannot be published as a Proposed
Recommendation as long as the Time Ontology has not been published as a
Proposed Recommendation. I would recommend to try to publish both specs
at once.
Thanks,
Francois.
Le 06/07/2017 à 17:58, Francois Daoust a écrit :
> Hello Simon, Chris,
>
> Now that the minimal period of time in CR has elapsed, the Time Ontology could in theory move forward to Proposed Recommendation. This requires CR exit criteria to be met though.
>
> I think there is a pending implementation to be added to the OWL Time Ontology adoption page:
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/OWL_Time_Ontology_adoption
>
> Could you add it there?
> Would you consider this implementation report to be complete afterwards?
>
> If so, we should run a call for consensus within the Spatial Data on the Web WG to request a transition to Proposed Recommendation.
> If not, when could we get to a point where that call can be issued?
>
> Thanks,
> Francois.
>
>